God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2013, 05:09 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result."

Hi, all:

Here's my point. Evolution does have greater explanatory power than the Bible for certain facets of life on Earth. of course! Just like we'd study engineering to build skyscrapers and not the Bible. However, Evolution sorely lacks explanatory power for many things. One example everyone is ducking:

Assumption: A whole population of animals is able to be on the land...

Now we have to assume many things about their reproduction, their food, the climate on the land, accessibility, the animals' mobility, etc. Many, many assumptions.

We have flowering plants that are far older than complex insects. Than we have bees and plants at vastly different times; pollinators and the "pollinated".

There are many, many, different examples I could cite. Let's all take a deep breath and I'll admit that creation seems implausible if there is no God. I get it! Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory. Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.

Thanks for your patience with me.
[Image: Bee_evolution3.jpg]

Pollinators arriving in the carboniferous period.

Bees, like ants, are a specialized form of wasp. The ancestors of bees were wasps in the family Crabronidae, and therefore predators of other insects. The switch from insect prey to pollen may have resulted from the consumption of prey insects which were flower visitors and were partially covered with pollen when they were fed to the wasp larvae. This same evolutionary scenario has also occurred within the vespoid wasps, where the group known as "pollen wasps" also evolved from predatory ancestors.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
18-02-2013, 05:17 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Explain how its an assumption? just because your ignorant of the science behind it doesnt mean we are just assuming these things happened. You are the one making assumptions based on lack of understanding.

Evolution, has more evidence to it then Gravity, yet we arent about to say "gravity, its not settled".
(18-02-2013 12:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Gravity is the worst possible example to choose because we see its effects yet cannot measure or sense gravity in any way. We can "feel" gravitational pull when jumping in the air and landing again, but for all we can say/sense it's angels pulling us up and then down again.

Your uniformed comments on Newtonian gravity stand altered by the work of Einstein and others demonstrating that nothing is "pulled" but rather falls along the path of bent space, by the way--there is no such as a "gravity meter".

In the same way, there's much we can see for which we can postulate Evolution or Creation.

...Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory? Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.
Gravity is a perfect example of a theory with a HUGE gap in it...we have no idea what gravity is. Physicists wish they had half the amount of data that evolutionary biologists have for evolution...once again you assume too much..why dont you attack physics for their gap in the theory? Ill tell you way...evolution is a threat to your belief system.

Science doesnt care about what we like or dislike, get over it.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
18-02-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Here's my point. Evolution does have greater explanatory power than the Bible for certain facets of life on Earth. of course! Just like we'd study engineering to build skyscrapers and not the Bible. However, Evolution sorely lacks explanatory power for many things. One example everyone is ducking:

Assumption: A whole population of animals is able to be on the land...

Now we have to assume many things about their reproduction, their food, the climate on the land, accessibility, the animals' mobility, etc. Many, many assumptions.

We don't have to assume all that much, because we have fossils. It was a long time ago, and more information would always be welcome but we wouldn't even be having this conversation if we didn't know pretty well what was going on. Have you stopped to think about how detailed the scientific knowledge is here? We found links between modern land animals and their cousins in the sea. We were able to determine which came first. We have fossil records of the transitions that occurred.

The basic outline of life on land and physical evidence for it:
4.6 billion years ago - earth forms
3 billion years ago - first life identified in the water
2.6-2.7 billion years ago - Photosythentic microbes on land (fossils)
530 million years ago - Arthropods ~10cm wide (Animal tracks)
425 million years ago - mosses and lichens, then simple vascular plants and fungi (fossils)
420 million years ago - lungfish split from coelacanth
380 million years ago - Tiktaalik is bearing weight on its "feet"

By the time our ancestors were making their way out of the water life had been present on land for 4.2 billion years, and arthropods preceded us by 150 million years. Any particular species transitioned gradually from water to land over long periods of time and typically spent millions of years hanging around in tidal pools or swaps ducking in between water and land before their transition was complete.

Sources:
* http://www.extremescience.com/earth.htm
* http://www.wisegeek.com/when-did-life-co...e-land.htm

(18-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  We have flowering plants that are far older than complex insects. Than we have bees and plants at vastly different times; pollinators and the "pollinated".

I don't believe that's true - I believe the oldest known flowering plant is only a few hundred million years old - dinosaur times well after the hey day of the insect. Arthropods (including insects) had been on land for millions of years before this occurred.

The earliest flowering plants would have pollinated using the wind as many species including grasses still do today.

* http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/ne...ossil.html

(18-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There are many, many, different examples I could cite. Let's all take a deep breath and I'll admit that creation seems implausible if there is no God. I get it! Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory. Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.
Thanks for your patience with me.

I think it would be a distortion of your scientific knowledge, but I think that you are not familiar with the body of knowledge that we actually have as a society. It is vast and it is deep. There is no alternative hypothesis that anyone is seriously working on and producing interesting results from. It is as settled as any established science. That is to say of in principle it could all be thrown up in the air if something new comes along, but as with the tectonic transition from Newtonian physics to relativity we could reasonably expect the pieces to fall pretty much where they were in the first place.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
18-02-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(18-02-2013 08:45 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion. The razor states that one should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced.

Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematically formalized Occam's razor: shorter computable theories have more weight when calculating the probability of the next observation, using all computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations.

In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models. In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result."

Hi, all:

Here's my point. Evolution does have greater explanatory power than the Bible for certain facets of life on Earth. of course! Just like we'd study engineering to build skyscrapers and not the Bible. However, Evolution sorely lacks explanatory power for many things. One example everyone is ducking:

Assumption: A whole population of animals is able to be on the land...

Now we have to assume many things about their reproduction, their food, the climate on the land, accessibility, the animals' mobility, etc. Many, many assumptions.

We have flowering plants that are far older than complex insects. Than we have bees and plants at vastly different times; pollinators and the "pollinated".

There are many, many, different examples I could cite. Let's all take a deep breath and I'll admit that creation seems implausible if there is no God. I get it! Now can everyone admit there are numerous circumstances that scientists have gaps for currently in Evolutionary history and theory. Saying "it's all settled" is a gross distortion of current scientific knowledge.

Thanks for your patience with me.


No, absolutely not. This right here wasn't an admission of your more than apparent abject ignorance, this is nothing more than you trying to save face in light of overwhelming evidence against your position. Even now you're aiming for a terrible and false equivocation, "creationism is implausible, BUT evolution is still terrible" is a load of tripe. You are now retreating instead of accepting defeat, with the outcome being that you will remain as sad and ignorant as before because you don't care enough to actually learn.


The point you try to make in your case, an argument against the land transition, is so terribly flawed that it borderlines on fractal stupidity. I take it that you're trying to argue that evolution claims a whole species magically jumped from water to land in 1 generation, and that would be both absurd and implausible. Guess what dumbass? EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AGREES WITH YOU! That WOULD be implausible, and the evidence does not support it. What it does support is a very long and gradual change from fish, to lobed finned fish, to lung fish, to early pre-tetrapods like Tiktaalik. Only in religious creation stories do we see support for the idea of entire populations of creatures 'poofed' magically into existence, perfectly adapted for their environments.


You don't cite any source for your claims, only a veiled assertion that you have 'many, many more' examples you could 'cite'. If the rest of your examples are on par with your aforementioned bullshit, we're not worried in the slightest. If this is the extent of your ammunition against evolutionary theory, you'd might as well be tossing tennis balls at the side of a Navy Destroyer. I imagine that you didn't list your source because you're either too stupid to remember to, or you're just smart enough to know that we'd immediately call 'bullshit' after you listed any 'creation science' source; like collection of lying hacks at the Discovery Institute.


You have been challenged to actually learn evolution, and you have declined that challenge. Instead you string along this parade of bullshit to hide your retreat. Your creation story is not just improbable, as described, it is fucking impossible. Evolution is not a contested theory, at all. Only by virtue of living in the United States and your close proximity to Fox New would lead you to believe that it is anything but the rock solid foundation of all modern biology. Evolution is both an uncontested scientific fact and theory, and creationism is still bollocks. Even if tomorrow there was a huge discovery and a mountain of evidence to support a new theory that superseded evolution, creationism would STILL be BOLLOCKS.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-02-2013, 07:34 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Quote:The point you try to make in your case, an argument against the land transition, is so terribly flawed that it borderlines on fractal stupidity. I take it that you're trying to argue that evolution claims a whole species magically jumped from water to land in 1 generation, and that would be both absurd and implausible. Guess what dumbass? EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AGREES WITH YOU! That WOULD be implausible, and the evidence does not support it. What it does support is a very long and gradual change from fish, to lobed finned fish, to lung fish, to early pre-tetrapods like Tiktaalik. Only in religious creation stories do we see support for the idea of entire populations of creatures 'poofed' magically into existence, perfectly adapted for their environments.
It could take 10 million years just as simply--I'm well aware that Evo agrees with me because it's all baloney and Evo has to backfill--because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, right? Moral accountability for everyone including scientists.
The eggs have to harden, the ambient temperature and pressures have to be adjusted for, the lack of predators has to be accounted for--only one land animal? Should have overrun the planet, etc., etc., etc., etc.
There are two issues here, though:
1. Evolution is a moot point for me. A saved Christian can believe in Evolution or Creation.
2. You want to debate with me but you're unqualified since you next to nothing about the logical alternative. I'm qualified to discuss Creation from a variety of philosophical and religious perspectives. And I understand the endless loopholes and backfill of Evolution as well.
Winning!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 07:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The point you try to make in your case, an argument against the land transition, is so terribly flawed that it borderlines on fractal stupidity. I take it that you're trying to argue that evolution claims a whole species magically jumped from water to land in 1 generation, and that would be both absurd and implausible. Guess what dumbass? EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AGREES WITH YOU! That WOULD be implausible, and the evidence does not support it. What it does support is a very long and gradual change from fish, to lobed finned fish, to lung fish, to early pre-tetrapods like Tiktaalik. Only in religious creation stories do we see support for the idea of entire populations of creatures 'poofed' magically into existence, perfectly adapted for their environments.
It could take 10 million years just as simply--I'm well aware that Evo agrees with me because it's all baloney and Evo has to backfill--because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, right? Moral accountability for everyone including scientists.
The eggs have to harden, the ambient temperature and pressures have to be adjusted for, the lack of predators has to be accounted for--only one land animal? Should have overrun the planet, etc., etc., etc., etc.
There are two issues here, though:
1. Evolution is a moot point for me. A saved Christian can believe in Evolution or Creation.
2. You want to debate with me but you're unqualified since you next to nothing about the logical alternative. I'm qualified to discuss Creation from a variety of philosophical and religious perspectives. And I understand the endless loopholes and backfill of Evolution as well.
Winning!


No, your understanding of evolution is simplistic and incorrect. You have lost this one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-02-2013, 08:01 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 07:34 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:The point you try to make in your case, an argument against the land transition, is so terribly flawed that it borderlines on fractal stupidity. I take it that you're trying to argue that evolution claims a whole species magically jumped from water to land in 1 generation, and that would be both absurd and implausible. Guess what dumbass? EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AGREES WITH YOU! That WOULD be implausible, and the evidence does not support it. What it does support is a very long and gradual change from fish, to lobed finned fish, to lung fish, to early pre-tetrapods like Tiktaalik. Only in religious creation stories do we see support for the idea of entire populations of creatures 'poofed' magically into existence, perfectly adapted for their environments.
It could take 10 million years just as simply--I'm well aware that Evo agrees with me because it's all baloney and Evo has to backfill--because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate, right? Moral accountability for everyone including scientists.
The eggs have to harden, the ambient temperature and pressures have to be adjusted for, the lack of predators has to be accounted for--only one land animal? Should have overrun the planet, etc., etc., etc., etc.
There are two issues here, though:
1. Evolution is a moot point for me. A saved Christian can believe in Evolution or Creation.
2. You want to debate with me but you're unqualified since you next to nothing about the logical alternative. I'm qualified to discuss Creation from a variety of philosophical and religious perspectives. And I understand the endless loopholes and backfill of Evolution as well.
Winning!
How is moral accountability an alternative to evolution?

The process of evolution is a well known, observable fact, and everyone is morally accountable to everyone else because morality is obviously subjective. Evolution happens and we have moral accountability. They are not either/or options. The thing is you think you are held accountable by some sky fairy, whereas we know we are accountable to other people.

This accountability does not have anything to do with evolution unless you count how morality itself can be said to have evolved with us. The rest of that first paragraph just shows how little you know about evolution, even after having it explained to you in the last few posts.

Now personally I think you did read those, but you chose to conveniently ignore the information presented in them because they disagreed with your oh-so-sensitive beliefs. You are closed to reality because reality disagrees with you. That is not winning, that is bottom of the pile, loser among losers.

If you are so qualified to talk about creation, go ahead. Hell make a new topic on it. Shower us with your "knowledge", and lets see how much of it actually bears up to even the least of scrutiny.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like hedgehog648's post
19-02-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
PleaseJesus, why do you post here? if you are not willing to investigate the science...isnt this pointless? You are talking to EX believers here (most of us I would think are), we know the "evidence" for your god, which we reject for being just philosophical arguments (which your not very good at) or just plain nonsense. What are you trying to accomplish besides trolling?

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes StorMFront's post
19-02-2013, 09:50 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2013 09:53 AM by Filox.)
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
Hello PleaseJesus.

Quote: 1. Evolution is a moot point for me. A saved Christian can believe in Evolution or Creation.
2. You want to debate with me but you're unqualified since you next to nothing about the logical alternative. I'm qualified to discuss Creation from a variety of philosophical and religious perspectives.

How do you expect anyone to have any kind of conversation with you after this? You just said you will not accept any of our evidence, theories or philosophy even about evolution, you will only discuss Creation and things about Creation. OK... How? How can the two of us now talk about why are we for/against Creation, if we can not talk about the alternative?

Your number 1 thing makes no sense at all. Are you saying that only those who believe in Creation like you do are saved Christians and that ... a few millions Catholics are not Christians? My grandmother was not really a Christian? Cool, I like when you people think that only, ONLY your truth is the Truth and that no other, even very small variations can never be right. Because it has to be like you say it is, by the letter, no variations.

I will not talk from your perspective now, I will talk from a perspective of someone who was raised in a Christian (Roman-Catholic) surrounding, someone who went to church, is baptized, have received Holly Communion and chrism... Why is it hard to accept evolution and creation together? God creates everything, but not in your 7 days, but in God's 7 days, that are actually eons for us, puny humans. All life on Earth evolves as scientists say today, more or less. There can be some variation, but in general, that is how it happened and is still happening. God created it all, God made evolution, it is such a remarkable process that it could never be created out of nothing, only God and His power could start and maintain something as complex and incredible as Evolution.

And there you go, you still believe in God, in Lord Jesus Christ, you are still a Christian, a believer, a saved one. BUT now you are not close minded fool who listens to some preacher with no school and refuses to listen to a word that millions of scientists are saying.

Evolution and creation (NOT Creation) go perfectly well together and you can have both. Not all scientists and doctors are atheists, in fact, about 90% of Croatian scientists are Christians. People who are, at this moment, working on some great gene therapies, slowing down the aging process, giving lectures every year about the origins of space and working at CERN institute, finding new mechanisms for killing cancer cells...

So, you better man-up, grab your life by the balls and start reading books, stop hiding behind one stupid, closed up idea. Go out, see the world, see what your God made for us. Learn about the mechanism that made all this.

You have much to learn, young padawan.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Filox's post
19-02-2013, 09:58 AM
RE: God's Omnipotence - The heavy rock paradox
(19-02-2013 09:50 AM)Filox Wrote:  ... Not all scientists and doctors are atheists, in fact, about 90% of Croatian scientists are Christians. People who are, at this moment, working on some great gene therapies, slowing down the aging process, giving lectures every year about the origins of space and working at CERN institute, finding new mechanisms for killing cancer cells...


You are obviously a Croationist. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: